t i r f t r v 


' ; ■ " - ,(■.<((  UiV  fiv  .M! 

* . „ ...  . . .t  h\  M‘  ' 

■ , r , i-  I 

■.■''■  '’ f 1 . ' 


- ; 


M 


THE  SOCIAL  DUTY 


OF  THE 


UNITARIAN  CHURCHES 


•4:xy 

hHh&£ 


sOnfey 


'mm 


wMWm$ 

%S*'-  | I 


■ 


’^WMWkm 


■sSHm 


■ 


mm 


*4  ' "u  ? twv^  |pfe 

■kVa#  • v., . «; 

!«3i?  ?rJM&.t4*G53F^it^ •'«*■£>& s;  ASS**-*?*-' 


US 

, ’^Vy- ' 


gSpfaHl 

miSm 

WSgaBm 

SIwTO 


11 


i§®i 


■ 


«&& 


n 


«&» 


- ,-r ;. 


ilwwsisgw 


a.*. 


Religion  for  the  New  Age.  No.  7 


PUBLISHED  FOR  FREE  DISTRIBUTION 

AMERICAN  UNITARIAN  ASSOCIATION 

25  BEACON  STREET.  BOSTON 


W'OcMW  njpECT 


, J 

U 

(U 


?5 


L ^T\  vXvsjc5ho-V  l OoOTv  oS^d  o cdt  i ar,  3 

iW\  tbso 

FOREWORD 

At  a meeting  of  the  Directors  of  the  American  Unitarian  Asso- 
ciation held  on  September  9,  1919,  the  following  resolution  was 
adopted: 

VOTED:  To  authorize  the  President  to  appoint  a Commission 
from  the  Unitarian  fellowship-at-large  to  prepare  for  the  meeting 
of  the  General  Conference  a statement  on  the  duty  of  the  churches 
in  a period  of  reconstruction. 

In  accordance  with  this  vote  I appointed  the  following  gentlemen 
to  serve  on  this  Commission: 

Dr.  Francis  G.  Peabody  of  Cambridge 
Professor  (Emeritus)  of  Social  Ethics  in  Harvard  University 
Alfred  T.  White,  Esq.,  of  Brooklyn,  N.  Y. 

John  F.  Moors,  Esq.,  of  Boston 
President  of  the  Massachusetts  Conference  of  Social  Workers 
Dr.  Samuel  M.  Crothers  of  Cambridge 
Minister  of  the  First  Parish  Church 
Arthur  E.  Morgan,  Esq.,  of  Dayton,  O. 

President  of  the  Morgan  Engineering  Company 
Dr.  William  L.  Sullivan  of  New  York 
Minister  of  All  Souls’  Church 
Percy  N.  Booth,  Esq.,  of  Louisville,  Ky. 

Attorney-at-Law 
Elmer  S.  Forbes  of  Weston 

Secretary  of  the  Department  of  Community  Service  of  the 
American  Unitarian  Association 


The  first  draft  of  the  statement  was  prepared  by  the  Chairman  of 
the  Commission,  Dr.  Peabody.  It  was  then  submitted  to  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Commission  and  revised  and  amended  in  accordance 
with  their  suggestions.  It  was  presented  by  Dr.  Crothers  to  the 
meeting  of  the  General  Conference  of  Unitarian  and  Other  Christian 
Churches  held  in  Baltimore  on  October  17, 1919. 

It  is  now  printed  as  the  expression  of  the  purpose  and  hopes  of 
the  Unitarian  Churches  of  America  as  they  confront  their  social 
duties  in  a time  of  change  and  reconstruction. 

SAMUEL  A.  ELIOT. 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2017  with  funding  from 

University  of  Illinois  Urbana-Champaign  Alternates 


https://archive.org/details/socialdutyofunitOOamer 


THE  SOCIAL  DUTY  OF  THE  UNITARIAN  CHURCHES 


THE  end  of  the  World-War  confronts  the  churches,  as  it  does 
all  human  institutions,  with  a new  world,  of  unprecedented 
problems  and  critical  decisions.  Religion,  not  less  than 
politics  and  trade,  must  welcome  untried  methods  and 
anticipate  unsatisfied  demands.  Each  day  is  a Day  of 
Judgment.  It  is,  therefore,  the  pressing  duty  of  Unitarian  ministers 
and  congregations  to  consider,  deliberately  and  prayerfully,  what  con- 
tribution they  may  make,  from  their  modest  place  in  the  world,  to 
its  social  sanity  and  peace. 

I 

The  preliminary  obligation  of  any  religious  communion  is  to 
recognize  and  illustrate  the  social  character  of  the  religious  life  itself. 
In  ail  concerns  of  the  modem  world,  the  individual  finds  himself 
now  summoned  to  a new  era  of  dedication  to  the  common  good. , Co- 
operation, partnership,  federation,  are  the  keywords  of  the  time. 
This  era  of  socialization  gives  a new  expansion  to  the  sphere  of  relig- 
ion, and  demands  not  only  a new  type  of  life  but  a new  type  of  church. 
Such  a church  should  be,  not  a club  of  pew-owners,  but  a power- 
house of  social  energy.  It  should  not  abandon  or  diminish  its  interest 
in  worship  for  the  sake  of  the  community,  but  should  teach  the  com- 
munity the  social  nature  of  worship.  The  chinches  of  the  past  have 
been  tempted  to  show  their  faith  without  their  works;  the  churches 
of  the  future  must  show  their  faith  by  their  works.  The  church  has 
often  sanctified  itself  through  the  truth;  it  remains  to  sanctify  itself 
for  others’  sakes. 

For  this  momentous  transition  the  Unitarian  churches  are,  it  may 
be  believed,  not  wholly  unprepared.  Individualized  and  self-centered 
as  some  churches  and  ministers  may  be,  as  though  survivals  of  another 
era,  the  wind  of  the  new  time  is  blowing  freely  through  many  congre- 
gations. Women’s  Alliances  and  Laymen’s  Leagues  are  signs  erf  the 
new  concern  for  social  welfare.  The  appreciation  that  the  ministry 
is  underpaid  has  roused  a new  concern  for  this  calling,  as  for  other 
workers,  that  a living  wage  and  an  adequate  pension  should  be 
secured.  The  internal  socialization  of  the  churches  has  begun.  A 
Unitarian  church  which  does  not  thus  welcome  the  new  world  is  not 
only  unawakened  but  decadent. 

II 

This  communal  consciousness  summons  the  Unitarian  churches 
further,  to  a clearer  understanding  of  the  nature  of  social  service. 
The  denomination  inherits  a precious  tradition  of  philanthropic  initia- 
tive, of  which  it  is  justly  proud.  The  science  of  poor-relief  was,  for 
the  first  time  in  the  United  States,  defined  and  illustrated  by  a Unitarian 
minister,  Joseph  Tuckerman;  the  protection  of  the  insane  was*  first 
secured  by  a Unitarian  woman,  Dorothea  Dix;  the  scientific  care  of  the 
blind  and  the  defective  dates  from  the  epoch-making  service  of  a Uni- 
tarian layman,  Samuel  G.  Howe.  The  counsels  of  Charming  concerning 
charity,  industry,  and  temperance  are  as  timely  as  if  spoken  today. 
“We  ought  to  be,”  he  said,  in  words  of  permanent  authority,  “by  pre- 
eminence Christian  Philanthropists.”  The  same  summons  to  social 
responsibility  meets  the  Unitarian  churches  today.  The  integrity  of 
the  family  still  needs  defense  from  selfishness  and  sin ; the  curses  of 
intemperance  and  sensuality  still  breed  destitution  and  disease;  the 
defectives  and  delinquents  still  call  for  care.  We  ought  still  to  be 
known  as  Christian  philanthropists.  But  with  the  new  era  has  come 
a democratizing,  not  only  of  politics,  but  of  social  life.  Patronage 
of  the  privileged  for  the  unfortunate  is  no  longer  worthy  of  the 
prosperous  or  welcomed  by  the  poor.  Social  democracy  means  not 
condescension,  but  fratemalism.  Temporary  amelioration  of  con- 
ditions remains  a part  of  social  duty,  but  its  new  problems  are  those 
of  the  exploration  of  causes,  the  provision  of  opportunity,  and  the 
anticipation  and  prevention  of  remediable  ills.  Social  service  4now 
means  all  which  science  and  experience  can  contribute  to  the 
common  good. 

To  this  democratizing  of  social  service  the  Unitarian  churches  are 
called,  both  by  the  needs  of  the  present  and  the  traditions  of  their  past. 
Poverty,  sickness,  sensuality,  and  crime  are  at  their  doors,  and  wisdom, 
experience,  and  rational  religion  are  at  their  command.  They  have 
been  trained  in  the  first  of  the  great  commandments— the  love  of  a 
loving  God;  they  are  now  called  to  reaffirm,  as  never  before,  the  second 
great  law  of  the  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ — the  love  of  one’s  neighbor, 
however  outcast  or  disabled,  as  one’s  self;  with  the  same  right  to 
self-development  and  self-respect,  a place  in  the  communal  unity,  and 
a claim  to  life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness.  The  science  of 
social  service  is  a part  of  religious  education  in  a Unitarian  church. 

Ill 

This  communal  consciousness  of  a Unitarian  church  is  not,  how- 
ever, to  be  limited  to  the  area  either  of  denominational  activities  or 
of  benevolent  expenditure.  It  must  enter  the  region  of  economic 


life  and  guide  the  business  of  the  new  world.  A world-movement 
of  industrial  unrest  has  succeeded  a world-tragedy  of  war.  The  class- 
consciousness  of  employers  has  been  logically  followed  by  the  class- 
consciousness  of  the  employed.  In  either  case  the  reciprocal  obligation 
of  co-operative  loyalty  has  been  ignored  or  defied  and  the  inevitable 
result  has  been,  not  productive  peace,  but  destructive  war.  Here, 
then,  is  a new  call  to  the  intelligence,  the  magnanimity,  and  the  courage 
of  each  community.  To  prolong  hostilities  is  not  only  wicked  but  stupid. 
The  claim  to  a more  equitable  distribution  of  the  profits  of  industry 
is  not  only  clamorous  but  just.  No  employer  who  is  gifted  with  insight 
or  foresight  can  delay  the  devising  of  schemes  which  will  satisfy 
reasonable  claims  and  ensure  the  stability  of  industrial  life. 

Already,  however,  it  is  obvious  that  such  schemes,  whether  of 
industrial  partnership,  security  of  employment,  increasing  wages,  or 
insurance  against  the  vicissitudes  of  life,  must  be  the  product,  not 
merely  of  a new  mechanism  of  industry,  but  of  a socialized  conscience. 
They  must  represent  a moral  as  well  as  a commercial  partnership,  a 
genuine  democratizing  of  industry.  Here  is  a new  and  compelling  sum- 
mons to  all  who  profess  a rational  religion.  Business  life,  under  Uni- 
tarian principles,  is  a form  of  social  service  applied  to  the  production 
and  distribution  of  usefulness.  All  concerned  in  such  transactions — 
the  manager,  the  producer,  and  the  consumer — are  partners.  All  have 
rights  and  all  have  corresponding  duties.  The  wage-system  alone, 
in  its  rigid  relationship  of  master  and  men,  is  a relic  of  an  earlier  era. 

This  organization  of  partnership  may  assume  many  experimental 
forms.  The  producers  may  themselves  become  managers,  as  in  a co- 
operative system;  the  manager  may  organize  and  administer  under  a 
profit-sharing  plan;  the  consumers,  in  the  form  of  the  State,  may  them- 
selves become  both  managers  and  distributors.  The  practical  operation 
of  partnership  is  a matter  of  economic  adjustment.  Religion  does  not  pre- 
scribe anysingle  formof  industrial  organization.  But  behind  any  program 
of  industrial  change  must  stand  a change  in  motive  and  desire,  which 
alon^can  ensure  industrial  stability  and  peace.  A co-operative  system 
depends  on  co-operative  men;  an  industrial  partnership  on  reciprocal 
good  faith.  Here  is  the  waiting  opportunity  of  the  churches — to  inspire 
the  men  and  women  who  shall  make  the  new  world;  to  carry  over  the 
communal  consciousness  from  the  life  of  a worshipping  congregation 
and  the  neighborly  relief  of  need  into  the  larger  problems  of  the  busi- 
ness world.  In  this  momentous  transition  the  work  of  the  churches 
has  an  essential  part.  Fratemalism  in  business  is  the  corollary  of  faith 
in  a fatherly  God.  Neither  party  to  industrial  controversy  can  justify  an 
association  with  religion  if  it  does  not  represent  a genuine,  candid,  and 
generous  acceptance  of  business  life  as  co-operative  service.  Wealth 
must  mean  stewardship ; labor  must  mean  life ; a living  wage  must  be 
assuied  to  any  industrious  workman;  a class-conscious  struggle  has 
no  prominent  place  in  an  industrial  democracy;  a dictatorship,  either 
of  the  privileged  or  the  proletariat,  is,  like  all  autocracy,  a relic  of  the 
past.' 

To  these  principles  the  Unitarians  are  summoned  by  their  tradi- 
i tions  and  their  ideals.  New  undertakings  of  industrial  democracy 
| must  be  welcomed  by  them.  Radical  changes  in  the  conduct  of  business 
should  not  disquiet  nor  deter  them.  They  should  look  forward  and  not 
back.  They  should  live  without  ostentation;  they  should  accept  pros- 
perity as  a trust,  and  adversity  as  a discipline;  and  they  should  die, 
not  as  those  who  have  been  ministered  unto,  but  as  those  who  have 
been  ministers  of  industrial  peace. 

IV 

Finally,  this  communal  consciousness  of  the  new  era  is  confronted 
by  international  obligations  and  by  the  tragic  needs  of  a stricken 
world.  Out  of  the  vast  disaster  of  war  has  emerged  at  least  one  per- 
manent blessing — a genuine  and  inalienable  sense  of  human  solid- 
arity, which  binds  the  world  into  a new  unity  of  duty  and  hope.  The 
security  and  welfare  of  peoples  hitherto  unconsidered  and  even  un- 
heard of  has  become  a part  of  our  national  self-respect.  The  community 
of  the  future  is  the  world.  The  world,  as  the  title  of  a famous  book 
announced,  is  the  subject  of  redemption.  This  expansion  of  sympathy 
is  but  a new  expression  of  the  religious  life.  The  brotherhood  of  man 
is  the  corollary  of  the  fatherhood  of  God. 

To  this  enlargement  and  enrichment  of  their  faith  the  Unitarian 
churches  are  peculiarly  called.  They  are  free  from  the  limitations 
, and  implications  of  a dogmatic  creed.  They  can  adapt  themselves  with- 
i out  restraint  to  unfamiliar  forms  and  a changing  order.  They  believe, 
with  John  Robinson,  that  God  has  ever  more  truth  to  break  out  of  his 
Holy  Word.  It  is  for  them,  therefore,  to  welcome  the  new  opportunity 
of  fellowship  among  divided  communions,  as  among  divided  nations. 
If  a League  of  Nations  is  to  be  the  guarantee  of  political  peace,  a 
League  of  Churches  is  not  less  the  condition  of  religious  stability  and 
hop*.  Christian  unity,  which  has  been  so  vainly  sought  by  the  way  of 
dogmatic  and  ecclesiastical  definition,  is  already  within  reach  of  the 
new  world  if  it  can  welcome  the  simplicity  which  is  in  Christ. 


